Human Resources Strategy Committee - Minutes of meeting held on 6 February 2008
HRC members:
Presenting: |
Observers
|
Agenda Item 1: HRSC Tracker
1. The HRSC noted that action was complete on most items.
Agenda Item 2: Secondments
2. Jim Higgins introduced this item. The Capability Review suggested a move to more strategic management of secondments and had highlighted five key Whitehall departments to work with.
Discussion
3. Members of the HRSC made the following points during discussion:
- The proposed approach was welcome, but the proposed list of priority Whitehall departments missed some important partners;
- For the IT and other corporate professions it was important to look for secondment options more widely than the proposed priority departments;
- The concept of a sponsoring division as the one most likely to benefit from the arrangement (rather than the division from which the secondee was last posted) was important.
- DFID needed to put forward good performers for secondments with our partners, and not to use secondments as a way of ‘managing away’ people with performance issues;
- Individuals out on secondment must know where they belong;
- Responsibilities for secondees (keeping in touch, re-entry to DFID, administration costs) must lie with a sponsoring division (and not an individual manager);
- It must be clear who has responsibility for reporting on outward secondees for performance management purposes;
- Access to the FCO pool, and short-term Whitehall interchanges are useful ways of getting additional people into DFID temporarily;
- Re-entry into DFID by outward secondees should be the responsibility of sponsoring departments, but Directors would expect support from HR.
4. There was broad agreement that:
- A more strategic approach was needed, and divisions have an obligation to manage secondees;
- The Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR) and the Home Office were important partners for DFID and should be added to the priority list; as should the Scottish Government for AH based staff;
- There would be corporate priority secondments to Whitehall partners which would not have an obvious single sponsoring department other than Top Management Group. These exceptions would need to be managed centrally by HRD.
5. In conclusion, the Committee agreed the proposed policy, including that DFID should have a small number of priority government departments with which to establish the proposed Secondment Frameworks. HRD should approach the HO and BERR for similar arrangements, and if appropriate the Scottish Government. (Action: HRD).The Committee also noted the need for flexibility to meet needs which did not fit within the policy.
Agenda Item 3: Lessons Learned from 2007 Promotion Round
6. Jim Higgins introduced this paper. He sought agreement to a review of the current promotion process and asked for views on how to approach a review.
Discussion
7. Members of the HRSC made the following points during discussion:
- Reviews could be time-consuming and a burden if they involved too many focus groups or workshops;
- The numbers and proportion of staff applying for promotion were very high, given success rates;
- There was a need for managers to manage their staffs’ expectations better, to ensure only the most credible put themselves forward; o Those who are unsuccessful need a better system of feedback than at present;
- A more robust selection system for those going into senior jobs was worth considering;
- There may be a need for another round of promotions under the current system if it was not possible to complete the review quickly enough to meet gaps arising in some grades.
8. In conclusion, the Committee agreed the need for a review, but warned against a time-consuming process with too much consultation. (Action: HRD)
Agenda item 4: Pulse and Polling Surveys
9. Sarah Hawkes introduced her paper. She asked the Committee to consider the advantages and disadvantages of both types of survey and what, if anything they can add to the Management Survey.
Discussion
10. Members of the HRSC made the following points during discussion:
- The transactional costs to the organisation of additional and regular pulse surveys, and occasional polling surveys could be high;
- It was unclear whether DFID, as a small organisation, would benefit sufficiently from additional regular pulse surveys;
- It was unclear whether the new surveys would provide much useful information, in addition to the already established Management Environment Survey; o Polling surveys would provide less statistically useful information, but could be used to raise staff interest and awareness in topical policy or corporate concerns;
- Some staff already suffer from survey fatigue and these proposals would add to it;
- The HRD DPF had raised the question of whether administration cost constraints should lead to dropping new survey work.
11. In conclusion, the Committee noted that both pulse and polling surveys had their benefits. Concerns about costs, both financial and for staff, suggested that such surveys were not a priority. Polling surveys had potential uses on an ad hoc basis if they were part of wider internal communication campaigns.
Agenda item 5: Drugs & Alcohol Policy
12. Ed South presented this item. Ed asked the Committee to endorse the Drugs & Alcohol Policy at Annex 1 of the paper. He also asked for agreement from the Committee on not testing staff for drugs and alcohol.
Discussion
13. Members of the HRSC made the following points during discussion:
- There had been a big drop in the numbers of staff using the HQ bars;
- Staff go outside to pubs and commercial bars;
- There was little reason to routinely test staff for drugs and alcohol;
- Testing could be done if there were obvious signs that someone was unfit for work due to drugs/alcohol;
- There might be a case for testing drivers in some overseas offices regularly, but not sure this should be a norm set by headquarters;
- The accuracy of the numbers of drugs and/or alcohol cases reported is questionable, given likely under-reporting;
- One risk area is staff travelling on official duty, such as access to free alcohol on long haul flights.
14. In conclusion, the Committee endorsed the proposed Drugs & Alcohol Policy, but asked for an amendment to make it clear that the policy applies to staff travelling on official DFID business (Action: HRD). The Committee also agreed with the recommendation that there should be no routine testing of staff for alcohol or drugs use. A paper on the sale of alcohol in DFID premises will be developed at a later date. (Action: HRD)
Agenda item 6: HRD Update: Moving to the new structure
15. Richard Montgomery and Paula Hallam presented this item, for information. They gave an update on HRD’s move to the new structure (M2NS) and how HRD will operate from 1 April 2008. They asked that the Committee support HRD during these changes.
Discussion
16. Committee members mentioned the importance of communicating the changes more widely, and wished HR staff good luck during this period of change.
Agenda item 7: Annual Diversity Report
17. For information, Liz Davis highlighted to the Committee that the Annual Diversity Report is currently being drafted. The Report will go to the Management Board on March 14. She made the Committee aware that if the Report is not signed off by the Management Board it will come back to the HRSC for discussion.
Any Other Business
Ad Hoc HRSC
18. Liz Davis explained that an Ad Hoc HRSC had been planned for 19 February, to focus on strategic workforce planning (SWP). If members were unable to attend they should send a representative. Divisional SWPs were due to the MB at the end of March and Liz would like the Committee to have the opportunity to raise any issues prior to this.
Security Committee
19. The Security Committee was meeting on 21 February. This was the first meeting of the Committee since the major security review at the end of last year. At the moment only Regional Directors were included however HRSC members would be sent the agenda.
Connie Smillie
Secretary, Human Resources Strategy Committee